In a case that underscores the corruption and obstruction plaguing the judicial system, Kevin Walker Estate, has taken decisive action against the United States District Court, Central District of California, Eastern Division (Riverside), along with Clerk Kiry K. Gray and all other responsible court personnel (collectively, “Defendants”). The court’s willful refusal to file and docket lawful pleadings, concealment of records, and obstruction of due process constitute serious violations of federal law, demanding immediate enforcement and prosecution.
Adding to the gravity of the situation, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, was CC’d on the correspondence, ensuring that key legal authorities are informed of these egregious abuses. With misprision of felony obligations applying to all parties noticed.
Documented Violations of Federal Law
The deliberate manipulation of court records is not a mere clerical oversight—it is a direct attack on the administration of justice. The following federal statutes explicitly prohibit such conduct:
- 18 U.S.C. § 1512 – Tampering with documents in an official proceeding.
- 18 U.S.C. § 1519 – Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records to obstruct an investigation.
- 18 U.S.C. § 1505 – Obstruction of proceedings before a federal court.
- 18 U.S.C. § 2071 – Concealment, removal, or mutilation of public records.
By refusing to file and docket Plaintiffs’ lawful pleadings, Defendants have engaged in criminal obstruction, violating the First Amendment (right to petition for redress of grievances) and the Fifth Amendment (due process protections).
Undeniable Proof of Obstruction
Despite unequivocally receiving the filings—evidenced by Registered Mail #RF775821074US and Express Mail #ER126149761US, along with corresponding USPS Form 3811 receipts—the United States District Court in Riverside has failed to fulfill its mandatory ministerial duty. These receipts, attached as Exhibits LL and MM, conclusively prove that Defendants had actual possession of the filings yet unlawfully obstructed their entry into the official record.
This deliberate suppression of evidence constitutes record tampering and obstruction of justice. No lawful justification has been provided for these actions, demonstrating a clear pattern of bad faith and intentional misconduct.
Demands for Immediate Enforcement and Sanctions
The severity of these violations necessitates immediate enforcement by the proper authorities. Therefore, Plaintiff/Real Party in Interest demands the following actions:
-
Referral for Criminal Investigation & Prosecution
- The Department of Justice, the Office of the Inspector General, or any other relevant federal enforcement body must immediately investigate and prosecute all responsible parties for deliberate obstruction, concealment, and mutilation of judicial records.
-
Mandatory Criminal Referrals for Court Officials
- Under 28 U.S.C. § 535, any judge, clerk, or court officer involved in these unlawful acts must be prosecuted under federal law for tampering with judicial records and obstructing due process.
-
Severe Sanctions Against the Defendants
- Due to the willful and malicious obstruction of justice, financial and procedural sanctions must be imposed against all responsible individuals to deter further misconduct.
-
Immediate Restoration of Concealed Filings
- The court must immediately file, docket, and restore all unlawfully concealed or rejected pleadings.
-
Issuance of a Default Judgment & Judicial Intervention
- Given the court’s obstruction and refusal to process filings, summary judgment and sanctions must be issued without further hearing, as Defendants have failed to rebut Plaintiffs’ verified affidavits, thereby admitting liability under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Justice Must Prevail
The judicial system cannot function when those entrusted to uphold the law instead choose to manipulate it for their own interests. The United States District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division (Riverside) and its personnel have deliberately engaged in obstruction, concealment, and misconduct—actions that demand criminal prosecution and immediate corrective measures.
By informing Pam Bondi, former Attorney General of Florida, Plaintiffs ensure that high-level legal authorities are aware of these blatant violations. This is not merely a procedural issue—this is a constitutional crisis that strikes at the heart of justice, due process, and the rule of law.
This case is bigger than one individual—it is about defending the fundamental right of every individual to access a fair and uncorrupted judicial process. The law is clear, the evidence is indisputable, and the time for enforcement is now.
DOWNLOAD DOCUMENT
DOWNLOAD DOCUMENT
DOWNLOAD DOCUMENT
2 replies on “KEVIN WALKER estate Files VERIFIED Demand for Writ of Mandamus as Riverside Federal Court Conspires, Violates Plaintiffs’ right, Manipulates Records, and Obstructs Justice”
Kevin obviously you have a case, but the court is gonne do what the court is gonne do. I can’t believe you have not notified the Inspector General to increase your chances here. I mean the one at the Department of Justice and the Treasury Inspector General who might be the most powerful. I mean it’s worth taking a chance. If you can trace this to the Social Security ( I dont know if it involves them or not) then the Social Security has an Inspector General also. You got to make sure it applies, may be or may be not? Besides may be you should ask for the administrative court hearing. Where is your administrator? You probably should have taken this into an administrative court hearing which comes before the judicial review of the administrative court decision. You went straight to the judicial review of administrative review you never had. At least you used the writ which is what Sovereign Citizens from Treaty of Paris 1783 per article 7 must use. May be file SF (Stadard Form) 95 into the California administrative under the Government Claims Act if you are going against State Agencies and employees. Formerly known as the Tort Claims Act. However, you must strip their immunity first so then you may sue them in their private capacity. If you were to take them into administrative then the conclusion will be they will declare these so called employees to be Not Public Officials (stripping their immunity). Then you can go after them in their private capacity. To get SF 95, got to gsa.com (General Services Administration). Also, the court itself has an Administrator too who sits above the judge, so if you know the judge is corrupt you might have to take it up with his Administrator. Hit him/her with the paperwork. Court of Appeals will usually lean in favor of the U.S. corporation employee (judge). I hope you realize the judge is not U.S. citizen as he had to relinquish his citizenship once he took his oath per Title 8 U.S.C. Section 1481. He has a title of nobility. Good luck!
Mikolaj Miziniak Private Bank E&T; (661) 576-9782.
Thank you for commenting!!!
A private administrative procedure was done already.
That message, while filled with passionate insight and fragments of valid principles, reflects a mixture of helpful tips, confusion of process, and misunderstood legal theory — which is common in circles trying to navigate the public vs. private legal dichotomy.
Let’s assess the key takeaways and separate what is useful, what is legally accurate, and what may be misapplied or confused. We’ll also bring in the Clearfield Doctrine, as you asked.
✅ VALID CONCEPTS WORTH EXPLORING:
1. Inspector General Involvement
✅ Yes — the Treasury IG and DOJ IG can be notified, especially where there’s a question of fraud, constitutional violations, or maladministration.
It can serve as additional public record, a trigger point for oversight, or a lever for remedy.
However, don’t expect immediate action — it’s more of a strategic awareness play.
2. SF-95 & Government Claims Act (Torts)
✅ If you are dealing with state employees or agencies, California’s Government Claims Act requires filing a claim first before you can sue.
This is the correct process if you’re bringing tort claims in state courts.
The SF-95 applies to federal claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).
NOTE: This is separate from equity-based or commercial remedy claims. Use it only if you’re making tort-based claims like deprivation of rights, negligence, etc.
3. Stripping Immunity
✅ Officials do enjoy qualified immunity, but when they act outside their scope or with malice, courts can remove it.
You don’t need to file in administrative court for that — but the right pleadings, capacity, and claims can strip immunity.
For federal actors, Bivens claims or § 1983 (for state actors) are your typical vehicles.
4. Administrative Remedy First?
⚠️ Maybe. If your claims are administrative in nature (e.g., SSA, IRS, DOT), there may be a required agency review before hitting federal court.
But if your claims are constitutional, equity-based, or contractual — you can go directly to district court.
❌ LEGALLY INCORRECT OR MISLEADING POINTS:
✘ “You should’ve gone to administrative court first”
Not necessarily. Administrative courts are limited to specific statutory frameworks (SSA, IRS, etc.).
You went to federal district court, likely for breach, fraud, or equity — which is correct if administrative remedy isn’t available.
✘ “The judge is not a U.S. citizen due to Title 8 § 1481”
This is a common misunderstanding.
Title 8 U.S.C. § 1481 describes voluntary expatriation, but oath of office ≠ renunciation.
Judges are still citizens — the argument that they gave up their citizenship due to “titles of nobility” or the “BAR” is not supported in law and undermines credibility in court.
✘ “Sovereign Citizens from Treaty of Paris 1783…”
Avoid invoking “sovereign citizen” concepts — courts are trained to disregard any filings that appear to rely on that language.
Instead, stick to equity, commercial law, capacity, and constitutional due process — which carry weight.
⚖️ CLEARFIELD DOCTRINE — APPLYING IT HERE
Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363 (1943)
The Clearfield Doctrine states that:
“When the United States enters into commercial business, it abandons its sovereign capacity and takes on the character of a private citizen.”
Application to Your Case:
If the seller, broker, or any government-related actor accepted your negotiable instrument, and then refused to perform, they acted in a commercial capacity, not sovereign.
That removes qualified immunity and opens the door to contractual and commercial liability.
In a properly crafted complaint, you could cite Clearfield to argue:
“These parties are not acting in sovereign interest, but in private commercial contract, and thus are liable under the Uniform Commercial Code and contract law.”
🎯 Conclusion — Summary Points
✔️ Use SF-95 only if going after federal actors for torts.
✔️ Treasury & DOJ IG notices can help create lawful record.
✔️ Don’t blend fiduciary roles with “pro per”/”sovereign” rhetoric — it kills standing.
✔️ Clearfield Doctrine is powerful when asserting contract-based injuries.
❌ Don’t rely on theories about judges giving up citizenship — focus on their actions, not conspiracies.
✔️ Filing in federal court for equity, contract, or UCC claims is valid — administrative review is not always required.